This is a continuation of a remarkable thread that has now received 10,000 comments running to well over a million words. Unfortunately its size has become a problem and this is the reason for the move.
The history of the New Statesman thread goes back to December 2007 when Dr David Whitehouse wrote a very influential article for that publication posing the question Has Global Warming Stopped? Later, Mark Lynas, the magazine’s environment correspondent, wrote a furious reply, Has Global Warming Really Stopped?
By the time the New Statesman closed the blogs associated with these articles they had received just over 3000 comments, many from people who had become regular contributors to a wide-ranging discussion of the evidence for anthropogenic climate change, its implications for public policy and the economy. At that stage I provided a new home for the discussion at Harmless Sky.
Comments are now closed on the old thread. If you want to refer to comments there then it is easy to do so by left-clicking on the comment number, selecting ‘Copy Link Location’ and then setting up a link in the normal way.
Here’s to the next 10,000 comments.
Useful links:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
The original Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs thread is here with 10,000 comments.
Yes Max,
Hansen is no more than one of those dopey Hippie protestor kooks that stand on the street corner with a sign reading: “The End is Near!”
He’s a highly paid political agitator masquerading as a scientist. As more of his personal opinions contaminate his “scientific findings”…………he loses more and more credibility…………what more could a global warming skeptic ask for?
The sad part is that people such as Peter Martin idolize him………building shrines to Hansen.
Judith Curry does make the argument that a scientist’s job is to do the science and leave the policy implications of the research to others. She further goes to to say that, if scientists do blur the line between pure science and advocacy of policy, then their scientific opinion can be then called into question by those who may oppose that particular line of policy.
That argument is not without merit and ideally Judith Curry would be correct. If, say, a scientist is working on the Ebola virus and discovers a new strain which has the potential to decimate the world’s population he should do nothing other than write up in the correct scientific way in the appropriate journal. If the politicians then decided, in their wisdom, that they are going to do nothing about it then our ideal scientist certainly isn’t going to get himself arrested on a demo and the end result is measured in megadeaths worldwide.
That’s the theory. That’s the official system.
In reality, scientists are people too. They have children and grandchildren. If they know something from their own work and appreciate dangers that are dismissed by others due to a lack of understanding of the problem, then the natural response of any caring person is to step outside the system.
Should they do it? I’d say it depends on the individual. Some will be able to and some won’t. I’m not sure they should be criticised either way.
I’m wondering Pete……….does proving your point “scientifically” include uprooting trees? A group of Australian environmentalists killed a tree that had prospered on the edge of the sea in the Maldives. The 40 year old tree was living proof that the sea level had not risen. The “environmentalists” killed the tree to remove the evidence.
So, in your mind Pete, is killing the tree to forward your political agenda justified?
http://sppiblog.org/news/sea-level-level-heads-needed
Brute,
Who are these “Australian environmentalists” who allegedly “killed a tree” and of which you write? Do you have any further evidence for your accusation? Or is it just something you’ve read on a blog somewhere?
You might want to look at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7945877.stm
Brute
Is this the guy – he looks a bit better than JEH, but could it be our friend, PM?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3256/3161773578_f697dc7b76_b.jpg
Max
PeterM
It looks like (3202) you missed the point of Judith Curry’s message (read it again).
Her point is pretty well summarized in the statement:
The (taxpayer-funded) NOAA “attribution of extreme weather events” program is nothing more than so-called “scientists” (Hansen et al.) using fear mongering to gain support for “mitigation” (i.e. carbon taxes).
It has absolutely nothing to do with
That’s pure, unadulterated BS, Peter, as Curry has recognized.
Max
PeterM
Here’s the story Brute posted on the tree on the Maldives uprooted by Australian “environmentalists” to eliminate evidence that there had been no rise in sea level, according to sea level expert, Professor Nils-Axel Mörner.
http://sppiblog.org/news/sea-level-level-heads-needed
Of course, the culprits did not leave their names. Duh!
Max
More on Maldives sea level (including pictures of the tree mentioned by Mörner and Brute).
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/19/despite-popular-opinion-and-calls-to-action-the-maldives-is-not-being-overrun-by-sea-level-rise/
Max
Max,
So you’re telling me that this tale about the tree is just an unsubstantiated allegation? I thought so. There is just no evidence at all.
Maybe Axel Morner put his divining stick over a map of Australia and it began to twitch? Especially when someone mentioned the word environmentalist!
Peter 3209
We have previously discussed this matter at great length. I looked into it and posted this on the relevant WUWT thread in 2009 that Max cited. This is my post-you might care to follow the link given to Warwick Hughes where it is dealt with in munch greater detail
“Ian M
ref ad hom attacks on Morner.
These posts were made earlier on this thread which partly answers one of your questions. It is a favourite tactic to try to discredit sceptical scientists with ad hom attacks, either by scorn at a hobby or belief, or more subtly in the ‘more in sorrow than in anger’ type comment as illustrated by these posts
King of Cool (01:41:27) : said
“The Maldives Tree
Anthony, I have a completely open mind on sea level rises or falls in the Maldives or in the rest of the world. I know your web is completely transparent and open to all input. I recall reading this some time ago from a Maldives local and it grabbed my attention as to its authenticity and I believe all your readers should be aware of it. It is item 26 from Shaig in the following URL:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=118 ”
To which I replied
” I have done some more research on the comment you posted re Morner and the rebuttal of Morners data in the link 26 you provided from someone called Shaig.
The name Shaig might be a common one, but I suspect this relates to the blogger to whom you linked. His comment that “I consider myself a student of climate science’ is somewhat down playing his activities.
Here is his phd profile linking to his papers.
http://www.jcu.edu.au/ees/staff/postgrad/JCUDEV_014807.html
This is a background paper he prepared for the Maldives Govt on sea levels
http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:YBYq6duKCfsJ:www.maldivespartnershipforum.gov.mv/2008/3-Environment%2520FINAL.pdf+shaig+maldives&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
This is the full report for the Maldives Govt called ‘ National adaptation program of action’ in which he is cited as an author.
http://env.rol.net.mv/docs/Reports/National%20Adaptation%20Programme%20of%20Action%20-%20Maldives/NAPA_Maldives_optimised.pdf
Shaig is hardly the disinterested partner that his post suggests. What his motives are I do not know, but I repeat that it would be instructive to see if Warwich Hughes received any further information from someone who appears to have his own reasons for saying the things he does.”
If you read the posts in context this might fall into a subtle ad hom attack by Shaig on Morner, but as I don’t want to make one myself on him, people will have to make up their own mind. (Perhaps that is even subtler!!)
Would welcome any further comments on this controversy which periodically resurfaces.”
Tonyb
PeterM
No.
I am NOT telling you:
As a matter of fact, the picture of the tree is documented.
Eyewitnesses have reported to Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University and past president of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, that “activists” from Australia destroyed the tree.
See interview below
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
Are you calling Mörner a liar without having any evidence to support your claim?
For shame, Peter!
Max
Max,
You ask if Axel Morner was lying? Possibly he was. However, the most likely explanation is that the local Maldivian population was just telling him what he wanted to hear.
Whichever way you look at it, this allegation just doesn’t have any legs at all. There aren’t even any names of witnesses or the supposed individuals who pulled down the tree.
It just doesn’t stand up.
PeterM
A statement is only as good as the individual making it.
If you believe that Professor Nils-Axel Morner is guilty of “lying”, so be it.
I personally do not believe that this was the case.
And, of course, you have no evidence for your belief that he (or the alleged Maldivian witnesses) were “lying”, either.
I’ll assume he was telling the truth until someone can come up with compelling evidence that he was “lying” (following the “innocent until proven guilty” approach).
Max
Aw come on guys, lighten up!
Who cares as to whom knocked over the 40-year old tree?
Aussies, vandals, Maldivian cabinet Members, take your pick.
It’s age and location is really all that matters, but I will say that Aussie greenies are known to do some naughty and bizarre things.
For a good laugh, see the video of GIStemp global change since 1999. Click fhe link and/or REPEAT, if necessary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=52Bunw5ecbc
PeterM and TonyB
I believe the more pertinent discussion concerning Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, is his work on sea level trends (rather than the “destroyed tree” incident).
Here is a link to the study he co-authored, “The Maldives Sea Level Project II – Past, Present, Future”
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract_54486.htm
An independent study showing sea levels curves for three locations in the Maldives, confirm Mörner’s findings of negligible rise from 1990 to 2003:
http://www.climatedata.info/Impacts/Impacts/Impacts/maldives_sealevels_files/BIGw02–sea-level-change—maldives.gif.gif
A 2009 Australian study by Cliff Ollier, “Sea Level in the Southwest Pacific is Stable” carries this further, to several islands, concluding that there has been no rise of sea levels there:
http://www.auscsc.org.au/download/66
Mörner has also concluded that a sea level increase in the Maldives by year 2100 of 10±10 cm is “possible”, but that any estimate greater than 20 cm is “nonsense”.
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
So far he seems to make sense (at least, a lot more sense than either Al Gore or James E. Hansen, when it comes to sea levels); let’s see if it holds up for the future.
Max
Bob_FJ
The amazing growing curve!
History being re-written, re-re-written, re-re-re-written (etc.) before your very eyes! (And ALWAYS in the same direction at that!)
Hansen changes GISTEMP about as much as most folks change their socks.
Putting this guy in charge of one of the major temperature records as about as smart as putting the fox in charge of the hen house.
Max
Max, (and ALL)
Naomi Oreskes has been in Oz launching her new book connecting climate change to tobacco and stuff. There is a transcript of her address below on the ABC “Science Show” which has various comments including the astonishingly naive. However, I’m having trouble getting a bunch of my comments through moderation on other stories like: Suzuki, Tim Flannery, Arsenic Loving Bacteria, and Penguins demise, and have not tried this one.
I seem to recall that you have held a fascination for Oreskes, and thought you might be interested.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2011/3101369.htm#transcript
Audio is alternatively available, but don’t put it on as a bedtime thing…. It is anger inducing to a rational mind.
Go to HOME and scan down the list, if anyone is interested in the other stories.
Brute,
Tim Flannery also has a new book and interview on the “Science Show”, and it has some amazing-astonishing assertions about Gaia and stuff, which Robyn Williams** (interviewer/presenter) drooled over. Many commenters thought it was wonderful, so I’m sure you would
For some reason, the so-called “Science Show” is keen to present such new books but they will not even mention e.g. Bob Carter’s book despite various request, and despite Carter’s offer to do so. (and Bob Ward’s interview abusing Carter, AKA “The worst interview ever”)
** This man makes me cringe…. He is also known as 100 metres Williams because he alone has suggested that sea level rise could be 100m by 2001. (and he refuses to retract it) He is shockingly biased despite that the ABC Code of Practice/Policies etc demand impartiality.
Oh, and Flannery was Australian of the Year 2007, for his activism on climate change
Max,
You’re “following the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ approach”?
Except when the accusations are against a group of Australian Environmentalists eh? Anything will do if it can be be used against them.
I should imagine that Axel Morner is treated a sort of joke figure among serious oceanographers. He’s retired and doesn’t have any official standing in his field.
Bob_FJ
Well, after reading Naomi’s anecdotal rewriting of climate science history and politics (with side trips to the “tobacco lobby”, etc. and a few “ad homs” tossed in) I can only conclude that she still shares one key trait with a Christmas turkey (or a Strasbourg goose).
Her “consensus” report a few years back got deconstructed by at least two follow-up studies, with a later study showing that there was no “consensus” for the time period after her study ended either.
All you need to do is check out all the various papers by scientists who obviously are not part of the “consensus”.
It’s kind of like the “hockey stick”.. Even when it has been comprehensively discredited and refuted, it becomes “dogma” and the author tries to keep it (and his/her reputation) alive.
But even more importantly, it is totally irrelevant to the scientific validity of the “dangerous AGW” suggestion whether or not a “consensus” (of 60%, 80% or even 90% of “climate scientists”) exists. As a “science” historian, Oreskes should know this.
I hope your ABC didn’t pay her too much money for this appearance.
Max
PeterM
What you can “imagine” (3218) about Morner is irrelevant. He remains a world-wide authority on sea levels.
Hansen and Gore (who have both made absurd sea level projections) are not.
It’s just that simple, Peter.
Max
PeterM
Innocent until proven guilty
You are accusing Professor Morner of lying (about the destroyed tree), although you have no evidence that this is the case.
I am not accusing anybody of anything.
Professor Morner apparently accused an unnamed bunch of Australian hooligans posing as scientists of destroying the tree, after eye witnesses confirmed to him that this had occurred.
Admittedly, an eye witness account may not be legal proof of culpability (especially since the individuals involved were not specifically identified or named), so Morner may have violated the spirit of the “innocent until proven guilty” concept.
But I certainly haven’t accused anybody of anything, while you have insinuated that Morner was lying.
Get the difference?
It’s all about logic, Peter.
But we have, indeed, beaten this dog to death (as Bob_FJ has noted), and should move on to the substantive issues (3215).
Max
Max,
Nils-Axel Morner’s scientific status would more accurately be described as ‘maverick’ rather than “world-wide authority”, except maybe on water divining but that’s not quite the same thing as we are currently discussing.
If you are genuinely looking for such an authority I’d suggest you take a look at:
http://www.sio.ucsd.edu/
Please guys, lighten up and instead have a giggle, at the image below, courtesy of WUWT, and change the subject!
It’s all a travesty really:
*Oz ABC embarrassment science icon Robyn Williams reckons that sea level may rise by 100 m by 2100.
*The Gorical; was it 6 m, (?) or was that by 2015 or somethink hethink. (I’ve not seen his movie)
*The IPCC fARt4, not very much really.
*The popular satellite data graph, declining lately, even less,
*And Nils-Axel? Just a gnat’s cock.
*And TonyB’s various data is of serious consideration
Sorry, PeterM.
NO SALE.
Check Bob_FJ’s post regarding sea level. (You may actually learn something!)
Max
PeterM
We have discussed this before (as you may recall), and TonyB has presented a lot of facts on this, as well, but the only way IPCC has been able to show a putative increase in the rate of sea level rise in the late 20th century is by changing the method and scope of measurement after 1993 (IOW cheating).
Even then, the IPCC predicted rate of rise until 2100 has been only 0.18 to 0.59 meters (while Wunsch tells us the rate is around 0.15 meters per century and Morner has stated that anything over 0.2 meters is “nonsense”). These are the experts in this field, Peter.
But then you have the alarmist “loonies”, like Hansen, Gore, Williams (see Bob_FJ’s post) predicting 6 to 100 meters! Ouch!
This is obviously worse than “nonsense”. It is flat out “lunacy” (as I hope even you can appreciate).
Don’t be silly, Peter. Come back down to reality here (otherwise you make yourself look like a fool).
Max